Category: Politics

Source: Radio New Zealand

Fisheries Minister Shane Jones overrode official advice a $50,000 fine for leaking footage from fishing boat cameras – five times the penalty under the Privacy Act – would be “unreasonable”.

The Ministry of Justice also warned the Minister that trying to protect the footage from reaching the public – including by imposing the fine, barring Official Information requests from accessing the footage, and limiting judicial reviews to 20 days – could breach the Bill of Rights, although the formal vetting of the legislation is yet to be done.

The changes limiting judicial review were not included in the public consultation, but will be consulted on now the bill has gone to select committee, with submissions closing on Wednesday.

Documents released under the Official Information Act show Jones requested such fines – to be levelled against people who received the footage from the Ministry for Primary Industries and shared it – be set at a maximum $50,000.

Jones was unapologetic, saying the high fine was aimed at protecting the industry.

“It’s a figure that I chose to show how dangerous it is for people to manipulate, misuse information that I fear will be exploited to taint and undermine the fishing industry,” Jones told RNZ.

“It’s about ensuring that only the state enforces rules and regulations, not green vigilantes or DIY prosecutors believing that recreational fishing is suffering because of commercial fishing. I’ve had enough of that nonsense.”

He pushed back on the concerns about human rights.

“This is a fishing industry – a legitimate part of our economy – it is now under a type of state surveillance: widespread video camera footage taken of men and women going about their daily lives on a fishing boat.

“I do not accept that that information should be made freely available to anyone other than the state or in rare circumstances, researchers or educators, so I think that it’s a violation of people’s human rights as employees in an industry that state surveillance information should be given indiscriminately to people who will weaponise it.”

The documents show Ministry of Justice officials warned the $50,000 fine would be “unreasonable, and that a maximum fine between $5000 and $10,000 would be more appropriate”, as this would align with the $10,000 fine for failures to comply with the Privacy Act.

The Office of the Ombudsman also “strongly reiterated to MPI that it does not support exempting on-board camera footage from the Official Information Act, noting that “an OIA exemption may curtail fundamental human and constitutional rights to access information without sufficient justification”.

‘Out of whack’

Green Party fisheries spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said Jones’ overall intention was to limit people’s ability to hold the government to account.

“He’s just protecting fishing companies and their exploitation-laden profits – that seems to be more important than protecting the ocean for our future generations.

“He seems to be more worried about finding people who might leak footage of people breaking the law, rather than the actual law-breaking itself.”

Tuiono said he wanted to find out what justifications there could be for having such a high fine, acknowledging protection of privacy was important, but saying with one commercial fisher fined just $3000 for illegal trawling that the balance was wrong.

“It looks completely out of whack to me,” he said. “You can protect people’s privacy because that is an important thing, but going so far to the other side?”

It should be noted companies can be fined significantly more for breaching fishing rules, with for example Westfleet Fishing fined nearly $70,000 in 2023 for failing to weigh and report coral caught when bottom trawling.

However, that requires a lengthy court process – and Jones last year introduced much smaller on-the-spot fines for breaches by recreational and commercial fishers alike.

Still, Tuiono expected Jones would have to back down through the committee process – something Jones indicated he would be open to.

“Yes,” Jones said, “the Labour member in the select committee felt that it was an egregious figure and said that unless there was some common ground, Labour would not be voting for the bill, National at this stage are determining whether or not the bill can be improved.

“I accept that that figure is an area that select committee members want to readdress.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former Broadcasting Standards Authority member says abolishing the regulator gets rid of one of the few ways people can challenge harmful media content.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the media landscape has changed since the BSA was set up in 1989 and regulation hasn’t kept up.

Former BSA member Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i told Checkpoint the change is a loss for communities.

Meanwhile, the government wants to explore options for self-regulation for broadcasters including through the New Zealand Media Council which has oversight of print media.

An associate professor in media and communication at Victoria University of Wellington said it was a “momentous” move to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Peter Thompson, who is also part of the Better Public Media organisation, said he was also surprised there hadn’t been any significant public consultation on the matter.

He called the move “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible.”

“In essence, we’re abandoning enforceable content standards for the media in a digital ecology where many media are struggling to maintain professional standards.

“I expected a far more fulsome discussion of the options that were under consideration before any decision was taken.”

Thompson said removing content standards like accuracy, balance and fairness in an environment where the media were under so much pressure “really invites a significant political risk,” because it meant any media operator that chose to ignore those standards “effectively can now do so with impunity.”

He agreed media regulations needed modernising, but pointed out the BSA had been one of the key actors that’s been arguing to update them.

Thompson said the reason the decision to scrap the BSA was so momentous was the impact it could have on journalism and therefore democracy.

He said there was already a “commercial race to the bottom”, which makes it easier to proceed on the basis of “cutting corners, cutting costs, cutting journalists, in many cases”.

“Having a set of enforceable standards puts a clear line in the sand about what the public and society at large expects from our media sector.”

He didn’t think there’d be a wholesale abandonment of those standards, because that would be a problem for brand image.

But he was concerned about a “significant opportunity cost” being attached to upholding those standards, which could then lead to compromising on those standards.

“That could happen on a slow but steady trend, such that we’re led eventually in a race to the bottom, where all we have is commercial media companies fighting viciously over eyeballs and advertising share and ignoring the key tenets that uphold the Fourth Estate.”

He said those who had been arguing the BSA was “some sort of Stasi like bureaucracy out to stifle free speech” were deliberately misunderstanding its function.

“The Broadcasting Standards Authority, in many ways, is an anachronism.

“But key standards such as accuracy, balance and fairness are not an anachronism, and nor I have to say are they a threat to free speech.

“In fact, they are the very standards that underpin responsible free speech and dialogue in a democratic society.”

Media Council to engage with government

The New Zealand Media Council Chair Brook Cameron told RNZ it would engage with the government as it progressed their considerations on the future of the BSA.

“The purpose of the New Zealand Media Council is to support trust in media and freedom of expression by upholding high standards of journalism.

“The Media Council has a robust process for receiving and determining complaints to ensure the public has confidence in a fair and independent NZ media sector.”

The Platform celebrates decision

The Platform was celebrating the decision, with host Sean Plunket posting on social media that it was a “wonderful 4th Birthday present” for the outlet, which marks that anniversary on Saturday.

He told RNZ he had been “a little surprised” that the government had stepped in on the matter but the result was good news for freedom of speech and for New Zealanders.

“People are saying this is a victory for The Platform or a victory for me, not really. I didn’t choose this fight. I was sitting there doing what this outfit’s been doing for the last four years, and I find it amazing that the BSA decided to pick a fight which ended up in its own demise,” he said.

“It means that an outdated government bureaucracy that was seeking to write its own rules and entertaining complaints that didn’t have any real basis has been told that it needs to go away and that its time is over.”

He had no intention of joining the Media Council, he said.

“I don’t want to sit around the table with big newspapers and media players who are owned by overseas investors quite often, and are mostly interested in selling advertising for real estate agents.”

If misinformation was being spread online, people could complain to those spreading it, he said.

“I mean, Radio New Zealand spreads misinformation, right? And no one’s stopping you guys from doing it… you guys are just going to have to be more careful about fact checking and whether or not you’re displaying inherent bias, as we all are.

“At the end of the day, I’ll tell you what regulates The Platform is our audience. They’ll tell us when we get it wrong, and our numbers will go down and people won’t listen to us.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – National’s local government reforms face one of the same problems Labour encountered with Three Waters, with councils at risk of being left out in the cold.

The coalition’s approach offers an illusion of choice which may yet help it avoid the breakdown in relations Labour eventually had to resolve.

RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Local Government Minister Simon Watts on Tuesday delivered their ultimatum to councils: “lead your own reform, or we will do it for you”.

Councils have until early August to do so.

Bishop and Watts have been pushing towards amalgamation as part of Bishop’s RMA reforms, announcing in November a plan to have mayors form boards with some level of government oversight – but consultation suggested mayors would be too busy for that.

Some had already come up with plans to amalgamate – and the ministers presented their plan as a way to enable that, giving councils choice.

The problem is: the solutions one group of councils comes up with could leave others in the lurch.

It is a problem Labour knows only too well from its Three Waters reforms, which also aimed at amalgamating council services and which also struggled to balance effective representation against cost savings.

As I revealed in late 2021, Labour’s Cabinet had agreed to that in June to force councils into its reforms rather than take an opt-out approach – but did not publicly announce it until October.

Cabinet papers showed finalisation of the mandatory ‘all-in’ strategy was delayed to September – with the aim of using the intervening time to build support with the councils, including negotiating with LGNZ to not actively oppose the move, damaging the representative group’s own internal relations.

That secretiveness from Labour, combined with the sustained oppositional campaign led by National, ACT, the Taxpayers’ Union and a breakaway grouping of councils, helped to fuel public opposition.

Of course, the ‘Stop Three Waters’ catchcry also leaned on fears around co-governance and communities losing control of their water assets, but the backlash was effective enough that Labour had to water down its reforms and have Kieran McAnulty visit every council in the country to sell the idea.

By contrast, Bishop and Watts have been relatively upfront about the need for change across the entire sector.

Their warning on Tuesday that oppositional or inactive councils will have reforms imposed on them makes clear the stakes and at least gives some certainty about what the alternative is – a wise move.

But that’s not to say their approach is all sunshine and roses.

Letting councils come up with their own plan may have worked in securing at least acceptance from councils in joining their own water reforms, but it also inevitably meant more groupings and reduced savings.

Applying the same approach to council mergers could end up with some messy, bespoke proposals with their own unique ways of working.

It also risks leaving some councils isolated – without the resources to perform as effectively as their neighbours – and could mean some of the complex structures and processes the reforms aims to eliminate are retained.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrote to Bishop last month warning that allowing proposals to come from the sector could lead to having “many more unitary councils than the 17 regional entities” which could “pose serious problems for functions such as catchment management, that must not be fragmented”.

It seems unlikely to come to that – with all the complications involved, the government is incentivised to make the new council boundaries as simple and streamlined as possible.

Bishop and Watts were also clear on Tuesday it was Cabinet that would make the final decisions, and while they will take ideas and pay lip service to councils’ preferences, they will also want a solution that best serves all ratepayers.

The shift away from what they had announced in November – where groups of city and district mayors would come up with the plans – is then almost a mirror to Labour’s shift to a mandated approach to water, but with better stage management.

We’re already seeing complications, with LGNZ’s statement on Tuesday warning some regions would face “greater complexity that needs to be worked through”, and asserting that all councils in a given region – including at the regional level – should be included in amalgamation plans.

As with Three Waters, mayors approached by RNZ after the announcement backed the idea of change – but were quick to raise concerns about how they would be directly affected.

What’s more, National faces the problem of having vocally campaigned for “localism and devolution” on the back of Three Waters, but once in government having consistently taken council decision-making powers away.

Think of Christopher Luxon’s speech to LGNZ in 2024, the crackdown on so-called ‘nice to haves’, the legislated change in purpose for councils, and most tellingly the 4 percent rates cap announced last year.

These are actions that fit the mould of “Wellington knows best”, and sharply at odds with the rhetoric of the last election.

Unlike Labour, this government – far more cash-strapped – is also offering councils no additional funding to ensure its reforms are effectively managed.

Where National would surely decry wasteful spending, similarly cash-strapped councils are already feeling ignored with increasingly expensive rates making up only about a 10th of the total tax take – the rest going to central government.

Their repeated calls to have the option to impose a bed tax or to set their own fees and fines have largely faced resistance – although Bishop indicated imminent legislation to enable “development levies”.

The election promise of “regional deals” has also ended up looking relatively ineffectual – Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling the first one “quite underwhelming” less than a month after signing it, no doubt partly as a result of the lack of funding that had made overseas examples shine.

Regardless of all this, local government reform seems unlikely to become the flashpoint for opposition that Three Waters became.

While Luxon’s pre-election rhetoric is a mismatch with his government’s actions, those moves have been popular with National’s base.

The timing is also far more favourable, with Cabinet not making final decisions on council proposals until 2027 – after the general election, rather than before it – so simmering backlash to any final decisions would come at the start of the next government’s term and land at the feet of whoever is in power.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former Broadcasting Standards Authority member says abolishing the regulator gets rid of one of the few ways people can challenge harmful media content.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the media landscape has changed since the BSA was set up in 1989 and regulation hasn’t kept up.

Former BSA member Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i told Checkpoint the change is a loss for communities.

Meanwhile, the government wants to explore options for self-regulation for broadcasters including through the New Zealand Media Council which has oversight of print media.

An associate professor in media and communication at Victoria University of Wellington said it was a “momentous” move to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Peter Thompson, who is also part of the Better Public Media organisation, said he was also surprised there hadn’t been any significant public consultation on the matter.

He called the move “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible.”

“In essence, we’re abandoning enforceable content standards for the media in a digital ecology where many media are struggling to maintain professional standards.

“I expected a far more fulsome discussion of the options that were under consideration before any decision was taken.”

Thompson said removing content standards like accuracy, balance and fairness in an environment where the media were under so much pressure “really invites a significant political risk,” because it meant any media operator that chose to ignore those standards “effectively can now do so with impunity.”

He agreed media regulations needed modernising, but pointed out the BSA had been one of the key actors that’s been arguing to update them.

Thompson said the reason the decision to scrap the BSA was so momentous was the impact it could have on journalism and therefore democracy.

He said there was already a “commercial race to the bottom”, which makes it easier to proceed on the basis of “cutting corners, cutting costs, cutting journalists, in many cases”.

“Having a set of enforceable standards puts a clear line in the sand about what the public and society at large expects from our media sector.”

He didn’t think there’d be a wholesale abandonment of those standards, because that would be a problem for brand image.

But he was concerned about a “significant opportunity cost” being attached to upholding those standards, which could then lead to compromising on those standards.

“That could happen on a slow but steady trend, such that we’re led eventually in a race to the bottom, where all we have is commercial media companies fighting viciously over eyeballs and advertising share and ignoring the key tenets that uphold the Fourth Estate.”

He said those who had been arguing the BSA was “some sort of Stasi like bureaucracy out to stifle free speech” were deliberately misunderstanding its function.

“The Broadcasting Standards Authority, in many ways, is an anachronism.

“But key standards such as accuracy, balance and fairness are not an anachronism, and nor I have to say are they a threat to free speech.

“In fact, they are the very standards that underpin responsible free speech and dialogue in a democratic society.”

Media Council to engage with government

The New Zealand Media Council Chair Brook Cameron told RNZ it would engage with the government as it progressed their considerations on the future of the BSA.

“The purpose of the New Zealand Media Council is to support trust in media and freedom of expression by upholding high standards of journalism.

“The Media Council has a robust process for receiving and determining complaints to ensure the public has confidence in a fair and independent NZ media sector.”

The Platform celebrates decision

The Platform was celebrating the decision, with host Sean Plunket posting on social media that it was a “wonderful 4th Birthday present” for the outlet, which marks that anniversary on Saturday.

He told RNZ he had been “a little surprised” that the government had stepped in on the matter but the result was good news for freedom of speech and for New Zealanders.

“People are saying this is a victory for The Platform or a victory for me, not really. I didn’t choose this fight. I was sitting there doing what this outfit’s been doing for the last four years, and I find it amazing that the BSA decided to pick a fight which ended up in its own demise,” he said.

“It means that an outdated government bureaucracy that was seeking to write its own rules and entertaining complaints that didn’t have any real basis has been told that it needs to go away and that its time is over.”

He had no intention of joining the Media Council, he said.

“I don’t want to sit around the table with big newspapers and media players who are owned by overseas investors quite often, and are mostly interested in selling advertising for real estate agents.”

If misinformation was being spread online, people could complain to those spreading it, he said.

“I mean, Radio New Zealand spreads misinformation, right? And no one’s stopping you guys from doing it… you guys are just going to have to be more careful about fact checking and whether or not you’re displaying inherent bias, as we all are.

“At the end of the day, I’ll tell you what regulates The Platform is our audience. They’ll tell us when we get it wrong, and our numbers will go down and people won’t listen to us.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Broadcasting Standards Authority will be scrapped in favour of having the media self-regulate, Minister for Media and Communications Paul Goldsmith has confirmed.

More to come…

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Explainer – New Zealand has signed a deal with Singapore that will ensure exports of essential supplies like food and fuel keep flowing, even during a crisis.

A bit like the one we’re facing now.

While it was inked this week, negotiations concluded last year, and Singapore has kept the fuel coming since the outbreak of the war on Iran.

Neither Christopher Luxon nor his Singaporean counterpart Lawrence Wong would have known just how handy that deal was going to become back in October.

It’s a pretty simple equation, crisis or no crisis: New Zealand needs fuel, Singapore supplies fuel. Singapore needs food, New Zealand supplies food.

With no refinery in New Zealand since the closure of Marsden Point, we’ve had to rely on importing refined fuel from elsewhere. Singapore has supplied around a third of that.

The background

New Zealand and Singapore have a longstanding trade relationship.

In the year to June 2025, two-way trade was worth $11.07 billion.

The two countries signed a free trade agreement (the New Zealand-Singapore Closer Economic Partnership, or CEP) all the way back in 2000.

In April 2020, they committed to a declaration on trade in essential goods, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

That declaration ensured neither New Zealand nor Singapore would impose export restrictions like tariffs on 120 essential goods like various foods, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment.

While the declaration was non-binding, in 2022 former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern and former Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong established a supply chain working group to build on those commitments and spirit of cooperation.

In October 2024, Cabinet agreed to launch negotiations, and a year later the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies (AOTES) was agreed to.

Were we at risk of fuel being cut off?

Singapore has made it clear it was hardly going to turn the tap off anyway, given the relationship and how much it runs counter to our general trade philosophies.

New Zealand farmers are pretty reliant on diesel, in order to produce the food that is then exported to Singapore.

So there was never much of a motivation for Singapore or New Zealand to all of a sudden become more protectionist.

But now it’s in writing, with legal obligations, and sitting within the CEP.

“Unlike the declaration, the AOTES is a binding, treaty level agreement and is not responding to an immediate supply shock but helping both of our countries prepare for future crises,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials wrote in a national interest analysis.

Countries can use a critical shortages exception under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), but this new deal is “novel,” officials said, because it prevents that from happening.

Not that New Zealand has ever used that exception. To the best of their knowledge, officials couldn’t find an example.

So, even if Singapore experiences a supply shock, it still can’t apply that shortages exception, which gives New Zealand more certainty.

But what if the worst happens?

If we’re talking about the absolute worst of the worst of situations, like a nuclear apocalypse which wipes out all of our crops, or the island where Singapore’s refineries are based all of a sudden sinks into the sea, then yes, sure, Singapore and New Zealand could technically circumvent the agreement.

The countries can still use other provisions or exceptions in the GATT or their World Trade Organisation agreements, so they can still impose export controls for “reasons such as national security threats, the protection of human, plant and animal health, public morals, or the regulation of classification, grading or marketing of commodities in international trade.”

That’s where a rapid review clause comes in, meaning both parties can call an emergency meeting to discuss adding or removing goods to or from the list.

Singapore and New Zealand have also promised to share information with each other in the event of a significant or imminent supply chain disruption, such as the predicted impact on their economy or national security, or how long it may last.

There is a provision within Singapore and New Zealand’s CEP which allows Singapore to adopt “any measure” to address critical shortages of essential imports.

So, if there’s a supply chain crisis, Singapore could use the provision within the CEP to prove an exemption from the AOTES.

But, officials said, the threshold was high, as the “relevant goods need to be listed as essential in Singapore’s domestic law, the critical shortages need to give rise to major difficulties for Singapore, and the measure should not be used to arbitrarily discriminate against New Zealand or to impose a disguised restriction on trade.”

So why is fuel still so expensive?

While the deal reduces New Zealand’s risk of fuel shortages, it doesn’t reduce our exposure to prices.

The AOTES ensures both countries continue to “expedite and facilitate” the flow of supplies, and prevents them from imposing export restrictions.

It does not “cut across” the role of the private sector in the production or management of supply chains, and there’s no regulation within the agreement for the private sector.

It also doesn’t mean New Zealand or Singapore have to commit to procurement, or guarantee the supply of goods.

New Zealand importers still have to pay the market rate for the fuel, and that inevitably gets passed on to consumers.

Singapore’s refineries have had to adapt to process sweeter crude than they’re used to, and sourcing it from elsewhere has also brought in extra costs.

The fuel companies can source it. They can refine it. They can transport it. But it’s still going to cost us, especially if that supply gets more constrained.

That’s why, even though the fuel is still coming into New Zealand, we’re still seeing those prices at the pump.

Both Wong and Luxon have been bleak in their assessments of the fuel crisis, with neither thinking it’s going to end any time soon.

What else is in there?

Food and fuel are the headline items, mainly because they’re the most pressing things the respective countries would need in a crisis.

The lists can be changed, but only if both parties agree to the edits.

New Zealand’s list includes petroleum and oils (other than crude, which we wouldn’t need anyway without a refinery), hydrocarbons, medications, vaccines, polymers, medical equipment, and building materials like steel and glass insulation.

Officials on the New Zealand side said the list was chosen to reflect what New Zealand already imported from Singapore, as well as “whether New Zealand could or could not stand-up production of the specific good in the times of crisis, how substitutable the good is, and whether we can easily source the good from elsewhere.”

Singapore’s list is almost entirely food: meats, vegetables, legumes, fruits, dairy, grains.

Coal is also on Singapore’s list, as are photographic cameras, for some reason.

Is it really a world first?

The “first of its kind” definition is technically true.

Australia concluded negotiations on a similar economic resilience deal with Singapore last month, committing to keep supplying Singapore with liquefied natural gas while Singapore promised to keep supplying Australia with refined fuel.

But even though New Zealand’s deal has only just been signed now, it has been locked in for longer.

Luxon has used that to rebuff criticisms that he should have got on a plane to Singapore sooner. The deal was agreed to in October, Singapore promised to abide by it in-principle once the war started, there was no rush.

“We didn’t need to, because the Australians didn’t have what we have. They probably still haven’t got what we have. We put this in place in October, Prime Minister Wong and I are good friends, and we agreed that we would work to this and formally sign it on this visit. So it’s served us incredibly well. We haven’t needed to go sooner as a result of this,” he told RNZ ahead of the trip.

Can we expect others to join in?

Luxon is pointing to the deal as an example of smaller countries innovating and modernising trade architecture, rather than responding to the United States’ tariffs with a tit-for-tat protectionism.

Both he and Wong have expressed openness to other countries wanting to join in.

Singapore and New Zealand’s deal had an advantage because they came from a running start, and had identified the products each other wanted, but both prime ministers have said others can sign up, as long as they can meet the same standards, guarantees, and commitments.

In July, New Zealand will chair a meeting with 15 other like-minded economies such as Malaysia, Switzerland, Norway, and the United Arab Emirates, and Luxon has said it’s possible some of those countries may want to give it a go.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Labour Party has announced its final candidate for the Māori seats in this year’s election, as the contest in various electorates heats up.

Te Pūoho Katene, a Fulbright scholar from Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, says it’s a privilege to be selected to contest Te Tai Hauāuru.

He told RNZ he could see where politics focused on the negative, and he wanted to see “hope returned to the table”.

It comes as Associate Professor of Politics Lara Greaves told RNZ there will be a lot of “tight and interesting and very unpredictable races” in the Māori seats.

The Victoria University of Wellington professor said the Māori seats contest would be “incredibly important” for the overall result, after last election saw an overhang created in Parliament.

“Before all of this Pāti Māori drama last year, I was expecting to see the potential for a greater overhang being created.

“Now it’s kind of hard to tell exactly what’s going to happen, but I still think that the Māori electorates are incredibly important.”

Greaves said it was a possibility to see Te Pāti Māori gone entirely, or Te Pāti Māori secure many electorate seats – both scenarios would change “the math” of the makeup of Parliament.

She said they would be unpredictable because the range of contests in the mix, with Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori and potential independent candidates running.

“It’s really on a race by race, electorate by electorate basis,” said Greaves, acknowledging the possibility of votes being split with the Greens.

Greaves said Te Pāti Māori had gone down in the polls and expected some kind of effect on the different electorate races, but couldn’t say how exactly that would play out, including whether some MPs would be punished more than others.

She cited Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke as an example, who came out of that “drama situation” looking “fairly put together.”

“Whereas others, perhaps their reputation has been a bit damaged by it.”

Regardless, Greaves said the Māori electorates would likely have a “pretty big influence” on the election.

“They are a feature of the electoral system that could be used strategically.”

Labour’s candidates

Kātene, of Ngāti Toa and Ngāti Whaatua descent, joined a line-up of candidates running for Labour that included sitting MPs and new faces.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, who was the only Labour MP to secure a Māori seat last election, would run for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti again.

Willow-Jean Prime would run against the Greens Hūhana Lyndon and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi in Te Tai Tokerau.

Kingi Kiriona, the deputy chairperson of Te Māngai Pāho, would run in Hauraki-Waikato for Labour.

Former Auckland councillor Kerrin Leoni would run in Tāmaki Makaurau, where Te Pāti Māori’s Oriini Kaipara is the current MP.

Former chair of Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata Mananui Ramsden would run in Te Tai Tonga, where Tākuta Ferris holds the seat as an independent.

Whakatāne District Councillor Toni Boynton, an advocate for Māori wards, would run in Waiariki again where co-leader of Te Pāti Māori Rawiri Waititi has held the seat since 2020. While losing the candidate vote, Boynton won the party vote for Labour in 2023.

Kātene told RNZ studying abroad, including with a scholarship in Japan, had shown him how Māori culture “translates across borders.”

His study at Stanford looked at “kumara economics” and the idea that “money is like a kumara” and its “true value lies in its ability to feed people.”

“That’s what I’ve been doing in my day job and in my governance roles, making sure that we can position this Māori economy to drive transformative change for our people and our communities.”

He was humble in his acknowledgment of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer who holds Te Tai Hauāuru currently for Te Pāti Māori.

“She has been fighting a strong fight for a long time, even before her time in Parliament, for her people.

“That’s an important element to bring into these kind of conversations,” said Kātene, who acknowledged he brought a certain set of skills and experiences.

“They’re different from whaea Debbie’s and from the other candidates.”

Labour’s strategy

Labour’s campaign chairperson Willie Jackson told RNZ the candidates selected were of a high caliber in terms of Māori who had done well in terms of Te Ao Māori.

“We’ve got real skills in terms of te reo Māori, in terms of business, in terms of Mana Wāhine, and well known in terms of their own electorates,” said Jackson.

“I think we’re going to go close to winning just about every every seat.”

Jackson said the party’s strategy was “simple”, and the party had a “clear economic policy strategy.”

“In terms of the needs of our people, those needs are in the housing, health and jobs area.

He spoke of getting rid of “rubbish legislation” the current government was implementing, including “watering down the Treaty”.

When asked what was in it for Māori specifically, he referenced the previous Labour government’s “one billion dollar of investment.”

Distinguishing Labour from Te Pāti Māori he said Labour was the leading party in the country.

“We’re the ones who roll the money out.

“Why would you waste a party vote there?

“Don’t be wasting your time with the Māori Party.”

He rejected the notion of making deals between parties.

Green Party candidates

The Greens had three candidates selected so far: Hūhana Lyndon who had run in Te Tai Tokerau previously, Heather Te Au-Skipworth running in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Tania Waikato in Waiariki.

Co-leader Marama Davidson said the party was putting its “full backing” behind Lyndon who had a “massive chance” in the northern seat.

“She has got a real reputation and record for being on the ground with whānau, but also taking your voice into the house, into the hallways of power.”

Te Au-Skipworth had previously been a Te Pāti Māori candidate, while Waikato represented Te Pāti Maori in the Privileges Committee.

Asked why they had moved to the Green Party, Davidson told RNZ it “wasn’t about any other political party.”

“This is about the Green Party having held the space for Te Ao Māori politics for decades now.

“You can’t have environmental protection and climate protection and social justice without upholding Te Tiriti.

“So it’s actually about us. We’ve always been holding this line as a movement, as a party, and we’re grateful that more and more people are starting to see that and know that about the Green Party.

Like Jackson, Davidson said there would be no deals between parties or arrangements made to secure seats.

“No one owns any electorates. No one owns any seats. That is really up to the people to decide” she said.

Te Pāti Māori MPs and the seats themselves

Te Pāti Māori has yet to confirm its candidates for this year, that will come in a few weeks.

Tākuta Ferris’ plans were yet to be announced as well, but a social media post on Tuesday from the Te Tai Tonga electorate stated its executive had “formally resigned” their positions effectively immediately.

“We will no longer compromise our integrity or values by enabling bad leadership,” the post read. Ferris has been approached for comment.

And it’s still unclear whether Mariameno Kapa Kingi will run as a candidate for Te Pāti Māori, or an independent.

The National Party has said it would run candidates in the Māori seats, but none had been selected yet.

Meanwhile, New Zealand First planned to campaign this year on a referendum regarding the existence of the seats themselves.

The ACT party has long held the position it would abolish the seats.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Southland’s regional council is calling for a united response after the government announced councils have three months to come up with plans to amalgamate or it will be done for them.

The news comes as the Local Government Commission continues to investigate a proposal by Southland’s mayor to merge the region’s four existing councils into two unitary authorities.

The entire process from assessing the request to a final decision and transition was expected to take three to five years, but now the clock was ticking down with the government’s new deadline.

Environment Southland chair Jeremy McPhail said the region had a limited window to determine its future.

“For Southland, the key question is whether we shape that change ourselves, or have it shaped for us,” he said.

“It’s up to us, as Southland councils, to work closely together to develop a proposal that reflects our region’s unique communities, geography, and economy.”

He was waiting for more government advice on how the Commission’s investigation would align with the Tuesday ultimatum – come up with amalgamation plans within three months or the government would do it for you.

“The Commission’s work has been building an evidence base for exploring options for the future of local government in our region. The challenge now is to use that foundation constructively and at pace,” McPhail said.

The Commission agreed to investigate possible merging in July last year, saying the investigation was expected to take at least 12 months.

At the time, there was a mixed response to the prospect of the investigation with Gore District Council emphasising there needed to be demonstrable financial benefits for its ratepayers and concerns its local voice could be lost, while Invercargill City Council and Environment Southland flagged that a single unitary authority could be a beneficial option.

Phase One of the Commission’s work was expected to wrap up last month which focused on scoping the issues and the opportunities of reorganising local government in Southland.

Jeremy McPhail was disappointed that regional councils had been excluded from putting forward any change proposals but said they would continue to advocate for the region.

“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink how local government works in Southland and Environment Southland remains committed to working constructively with our council partners, iwi and communities to help shape a system that is fit for the future.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government has given councils an ultimatum: come up with amalgamation plans within three months or the government will do it for you.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced the move on Tuesday afternoon, giving a three-month deadline for reorganisation plans to be delievered.

It followed an announcement in November that groups of city and district mayors – with some government oversight – would be formed to come up with such plans.

But the ministers on Tuesday said if councils failed to make use of the new ‘Head Start’ approach, they would be forced into changes.

“Our message to councils is simple: lead your own reform, or we will do it for you. Either way, change is coming,” Bishop said.

Watts was explicit that proposals should focus on creating larger, more efficient unitary authorities.

He said the government was providing councils with “real flexibility”.

“Proposals don’t need to cover an entire region, but they must show clear support, strong leadership, and real benefits for communities.”

The proposals would be considered by government officials against criteria including practicality, simplicity, value for money, effective representation, timeliness and how it works with the new resource management system.

Decisions would be made this year, then developed in detail and signed off in 2027 to be implemented ahead of the 2028 local elections.

“For areas that do not come forward through the head start pathway, the government will implement a backstop process to ensure reform still happens across the country. This will involve a standardised approach, including transitional governance arrangements while changes are put in place,” Watts said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has condemned the latest attacks on the United Arab Emirates, saying Iran has violated its ceasefire.

In a social media post, Peters said the attack was unhelpful for peace negotiations.

New Zealand condemns Iran’s latest attacks on the United Arab Emirates.
 
Iran’s actions violate the ceasefire and are unhelpful for peace negotiations.
 
We reiterate the urgent need for de-escalation. Iran must honour its commitment to the ceasefire and respect international…

— Winston Peters (@NewZealandMFA) May 4, 2026

“New Zealand condemns Iran’s latest attacks on the United Arab Emirates. Iran’s actions violate the ceasefire and are unhelpful for peace negotiations,” the post said.

“We reiterate the urgent need for de-escalation. Iran must honour its commitment to the ceasefire and respect international law, including the protections afforded to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

“We urge Iran to prioritise political agreement on a permanent solution to end this crisis. The conflict will not be resolved through drones and missiles.”

BBC reported the strike caused a fire at the oil port of Fujairah, and came alongside attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz as the United States seeks to guide ships through it and out of the Persian Gulf.

US President Donald Trump said the United States had also struck seven Iranian ‘fast boats’ in the strait.

He has warned Iranian forces would be “blown off the face of the Earth” if they attempted to target US ships in the Strait or the Gulf.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand